Later this week, Obama will have his first face-to-face negotiations over the Fiscal Cliff. In a post that came out this afternoon, The Washington Post's Zachary Goldfarb nicely summarized Obama's opening offer:

Obamas previous proposal called for raising $1.6 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy by allowing tax rates to increase, imposing a new special tax on millionaires and limiting deductions for the wealthy. He also proposed $340 billion in health-care and entitlement savings, continuing $1.1 trillion in spending cuts already passed into law and generating another $1 trillion in savings through the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The demand for $1.6 trillion in new taxes is far greater than Obama proposed in negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in summer 2011. At the time, Obama wavered between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, depending on how much in entitlement cuts Republicans were demanding.

That story came out at 2:37 PM ET, and it's interesting that it was in the several minutes after the release that the market sagged through the rest of the day.

President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.

Mr. Obama, in a meeting Tuesday with union leaders and other liberal activists, also pledged to hang tough in seeking tax increases on wealthy Americans. In one sign of conciliation, he made no specific commitment to leave unscathed domestic programs such as Medicare, leaving the door open to spending cuts many fellow Democrats oppose.

Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), dismissed the president’s opening position for the negotiations. He said Mr. Boehner’s proposal to revamp the tax code and entitlement programs is “consistent with the president’s call for a ‘balanced’ approach.”

Mr. Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target that would be his opening bid. He has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenuesnot higher tax ratesif Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs, the ultimate source of the U.S.’s long-term budget woes.

The president’s opening gambit, based on his 2013 budget proposal, signals Mr. Obama’s intent to press his advantage on the heels of his re-election last week. However, before gathering at the White House with lawmakers on Friday, he will meet with chief executives of a dozen companies Wednesday. Many executives have aired concerns about the economic consequences of the looming “fiscal cliff”and the risk of another standoff.

Taxes, I believe....savings...won’t happen...budget cuts from entitlements won’t happen...military budget cuts...absolutely. Remember, he has more flexibility since his reelection, our nuclear arsenal shall be reduced to nothing.

He said that raising the highest bracket from 35% to 39.5% is only a 4% hike and won't even be noticed by high earners.

I'll betcha most people in that bracket learned enough in high school to know that hike is more like 13%. Maybe community organizers don't have to take math in high school ...or college, for that matter.

The spending “cuts” outlined aren’t really cuts, at all. They are, in fact, lessened increases in spending growth. This is a function of the base line budget model used by the Feds, to keep people in the dark.
The same model allows them to cast a tax rate reduction as a deficit increase.

The fix is to force the government to use a zero based budget model, and require two year or four year sunset on ALL program enabling legislation that requires funding for implementation and continuation.

9
posted on 11/13/2012 7:18:18 PM PST
by PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Still seeking change.)

RE: I’ll betcha most people in that bracket learned enough in high school to know that hike is more like 13%. Maybe community organizers don’t have to take math in high school ...or college, for that matter.

I guess it is just beyond the mental capacity of democrats to even think that cutting spending works better then increasing taxes.

Yea ol’ economic standard ... increasing taxes lowers taxable income coming to the government, lowering taxes increases taxable income coming to the government. Basic Icon 101. But, I guess, lowering the burden is not the object ... making the US a third world country is the ultimate goal.

Don't forget a "wealth tax" on lefty billionaires like Peter Lewis, George Soros and Warren Buffett. Then, we could delay the implementation of ObamaCare until there are sufficient revenues raised by these methods to pay for it.

Then a tax holiday for modest income workers in the private sector until our take home pay and benefits achieves parity with our counterparts in the federal workforce. It's only fair.

16
posted on 11/13/2012 7:57:17 PM PST
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

RE: raising $1.6 trillion in new taxes on the wealth
How is this even mathematically possible?!?!

_______________________

It’s not. According to Prof. Walter Williams...

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.

RE: Libtards are stuck in zero sum game thinking mode because most of them have never created one dollars worth of wealth.

_______________________

Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world.

That’s just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue.

One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.

Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It’s not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us — liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

Warren Buffet likes to complain that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary who makes a mere six figures.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett triggered a major debate over taxes recently when he wrote in The New York Times that he should be paying more to the federal government. He called on Washington lawmakers to up tax rates on the rich.

But it turns out that Buffetts own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, its been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.

Yes, thats right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich arent paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share.

RE :”Obamas previous proposal called for raising $1.6 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy by allowing tax rates to increase, imposing a new special tax on millionaires and limiting deductions for the wealthy. He also proposed $340 billion in health-care and entitlement savings, continuing $1.1 trillion in spending cuts already passed into law and generating another $1 trillion in savings through the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. .... The demand for $1.6 trillion in new taxes is far greater than Obama proposed in negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in summer 2011. At the time, Obama wavered between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, depending on how much in entitlement cuts Republicans were demanding. “

Obama seems pretty confident. He knows Bohner and McConnell too well. At least if Pelosi was House Speaker Republicans would oppose this stuff. For some reason I think another cave is coming.

Is the 1.1 T $ the so called prior cuts (that no-one noticed) or the automatic ones that have not taken place yet? I am for letting those automatic cuts go into effect.

27
posted on 11/13/2012 9:32:43 PM PST
by sickoflibs
(How long before cry-Bohner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)

“Four percent” or “Four percentage points”?
Pfft...a mere trifle when you’re The Won.
Remember, he said a couple weeks ago “Math is Hard” and admitted he can’t help his daughter with her 7th grade math problems.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Saturday said that President Obamas reelection was a great victory, but that it would be incomplete with a reconstruction of urban America and an investment in the communities where the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for the president live.

Despite attempts at voter suppression in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, Jackson said, blacks turned out en masse to vote, enduring waits that stretched into hours in many places. We waited, we voted, we believed, Jackson said. Now we want to get well.

We voted early, we voted long. Our votes won, he said. Rev. Jackson, who spoke longer, louder, and more forcefully than he has in some time at the Saturday morning Rainbow/PUSH meeting, asked the crowd, What do we want? We want, we want, we want, we deserve, we deserve a return on our investment. Whats good for us is good for everybody. Whats good for blacks is good for everybody, he said. We bled too much, we died too young, we cried too much, we prayed too long, now we want a return on our investment.

Referring to those voter suppression efforts, he said, these acts of meanness had unintended consequences. Rather than keeping blacks and Latinos away from the polls, voter ID measures and the curtailing of access to the voting booths made people more determined to vote. Suppression became stimulation and people fought back, he said.

We fought back, and the battle was won, but the war still remains, he said. If we vote and dont bargain we get nothing. A Jacuzzi filled with stagnant water will not get you well, Jackson said. You have to stir the water. Jackson said blacks, who voted for Barack Obama for state senator, for U.S. Senator, and now twice as President of the United States, should demand, bargain, and march if necessary, for an end to patterns of race discrimination, (for) our share of jobs. We want faster public transportation to connect us to where the jobs are.

He said black American also needs access to capital, noting, Its cruel to say. jump in the pool, when there is no water. 

He also called for fair trade, a domestic trade zone. We need a domestic OPEC, he said. In Chicago, for example, there are 100,000 vacant homes or abandoned lots; 40,000 in Baltimore. If we were to rebuild 25 percent, if we take down the boards and put in window panes, fix the broken sidewalks, cut the grass, fix the roofing, wed create more jobs than there are people, just rebuilding where we live.

Jackson said, there must be a plan for reconstruction of urban America. Saying that automobile companies and banks got bailouts, were the people who provided the votes  we want to be bailed out. We need jobs, education, healthcare now. If we can be targeted for voter registration and voter turnout, target us for reconstruction, now.

We are the new mainstream, Jackson said. We are the America of shared hopes and shared dreams. We have the power, we have the votes. We waited, we voted, we believed, now we want to get well. He then asked the crowd, Do you want to get well? Are you willing to fight to get well?

Its time to sing a new song, of joy and hope, Jackson said. Its time to march again. March for healthcare, march for jobs. When we march great things come our way. 

He said that raising the highest bracket from 35% to 39.5% is only a 4% hike and won't even be noticed by high earners. I'll betcha most people in that bracket learned enough in high school to know that hike is more like 13%.

Throw in the extra 3.8% for Obamacare, and increased Medicare taxes on high-earning self-employed, and it's 4.7% on top of the 4%. That makes it more like 25%, more or less.

And then, if the well-off die, what they've managed to save on the first go-round of taxes will get creamed by dramatically increased estate taxes. And, no, other taxes, like state and sales taxes aren't going down, either.

32
posted on 11/14/2012 6:03:02 AM PST
by Pearls Before Swine
(Cynical about the political process. Who, me?)

” We are the new mainstream, Jackson said. We are the America of shared hopes and shared dreams. We have the power, we have the votes. We waited, we voted, we believed, now we want to get well. He then asked the crowd, Do you want to get well? Are you willing to fight to get well? “

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.